Is Islam a Religion of Peace? No.

It seems that I keep running into people who, whenever a terrorist action such as a suicide bombing occurs, they want to attach, “but Islam is a religion of peace” into the conversation — as if that makes it all acceptable.

Moreover, Islam is not a religion of peace. Neither is Christianity or Judaism.

But, the politically incorrect stance that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, and further, that it is the most violent major religion in existence today (emphasis on “today” because I know people are going to say “Oh the Crusades, or the Inquisition!” Yes, I know about these. At that time, Christianity was the most violent religion. I’m talking about today, however.)

People are quick to throw around terms like “racist” or “religious intolerance” when a statement like this is made. This just kills the conversation and prevents people from seeing the reality.

Let’s go through a few facts that demonstrate that Islam is not a religion of peace:

First, Mohammed was a warlord. He spread Islam by the sword. Muslim theologians will give excuses or reasons why these different wars were just wars and so on, but none of them deny that he waged wars on other people. Mohammed was not a figure like Jesus (and I have no love for Jesus).

Second, Islam provides many rewards for dying in battle. Almost everyone knows about the 72 virgins acquired after the death of a martyr. Again, theologians will try to say here that the word “virgin” that is translated from the Koran is not actually virgins but angels or something like that. This doesn’t matter for two reasons. Firstly, it’s still a reward for killing other people and dying in the name of Islam. Secondly, the young men who commit atrocities, such as suicide bombings, don’t talk to theologians, they talk to their elders or their imams who tell them that they will have 72 virgins to do with what they want.

In this way, suicide and violence against infidels is encouraged.

There are other reasons that Islam is not a religion of peace, but they are more debatable. The two points I have outlined here are basic tenets of Islam: Mohammed was a wartime leader and killing and dying for Islam is rewarded. They are both violent. Saying otherwise would be comparable to saying George W. Bush was a president of peace.

Further, I don’t think it’s fair to use the nebulous speech of theologians to discuss topics like this because their focus is on obfuscation, not fact. We have to look at what the average Muslim or the average Christian believes to determine what their religion is all about. You may say that all the Muslims or Christians you meet are peaceful. That may be so. However, the media is what gives us a larger picture. The daily reports of suicide bombings tell us that there is a large number of very violent Muslims in existence today.

Lastly, I’ll say something surprising. I am not a peace-lover. I think violence is necessary in certain situations. Therefore, my life is not a life of peace! I admit this to myself and others.

The reason that I think Muslims and guilt-stricken liberals claim Islam is a religion of peace is because they know that it isn’t and they feel guilty about it.

I’m not guilty about the fact that I think violence is necessary sometimes. Islam needs to stop lying to itself and admit that it isn’t a religion of peace.

21 Comments:

Interesting point of view. I just want to comment on some of the points you’ve presented as facts.

The prophet Mohammed (peace and blessings be upon him) led battles, not wars. All of his eight battles were in self defense. Even in Western democratic nations, you have the concept of self defense, right? He never attacked a group of people first; his battles were responses to initial attacks by them. Please tell me of at least one battle he had led that was purely to “kill the infidels.” Also, in these battles, he and his men killed members of military groups, and never ever innocent civilians. The Quran clearly prohibits the killing of women, children and the elderly. Even when they fought or killed the military members, they were prohibited, as stated in the Quran, to burn or torture them; the killing should be quick and as painless as possible. Nowhere in the Quran does it state that we must kill anyone, Muslims and on-Muslims alike, except in two verses, both related to battles, which I have explained above. This is the mercy our religion has shown us.

Now, about the 72 virgins for the martyrs. That’s incorrect. The “virgins” (that are really not virgins like you said) are for every Muslim man. Even my father is getting 72 virgins if he enters heaven. But that does not bother Muslim women, like many would think, because we will be more beautiful than them. So no need for us to be jealous. 😛 And getting 72 virgins has nothing to do with killing people. I don’t know where Westerners got this idea from. If you kill innocent people,whether their Muslims, Christians , Jews, atheists or whatever, you go to hell.

I am surprised (ok, maybe not) that you have described prophet Mohammed (pbuh) very negatively. Why? Because of his battles? I don’t believe that you know him as well as you think. Did you know that when he was spreading Islam (never by the sword, but by peaceful negotiations) he was insulted in the most ugliest of ways. People threw dirt, rocks and even human waste on him; placed thorns on is doorstep; strangled him with his turban and even poisoned him. Do you know how he reacted to all of this? He forgave all the people behind these acts, doing nothing. If he was a warlord as you claim, he would have killed them all.

I don’t want you to think that I’m offended or upset by this post, or that I want you to stop posting negative things about Islam. No, by all means post whatever you want because it’s your right. Just as the prophet (pbuh) had done, I forgive people that insult my faith, and let it go. Peace 🙂

First, you’re the first person who’s actually posted on any of my blogs, so that was nice 🙂

Second, I was glad that you, as a Muslim, responded because, to be honest, I was actually thinking a bit about you when I wrote this, and I was worried that I’d alienate with my honest beliefs. Worried because I actually like your opinions, even though they don’t align precisely with mine 🙂

I was interested in your post, however, until one of the last few lines… you said “I want you to stop posting negative things about Islam.” Well, this is kind of a conversation killer, and I was hoping we could actually discuss this topic without either of us being offended (and to be honest, there’s nothing that offends me, aside from things like pedophilia or sadism).

So… I’m not sure how to proceed. Here’s what I’ll do: I’ll respond with mild counter-arguments. I won’t rip on Islam, but I will give my side as best as I can.

First, the distinction between wars and battles fought by Mohammed, is irrelevant because my point was that he was not a pacifist. He engaged in bloody battles. His leadership caused deaths. Now, this is not insulting to Mohammed, and I’ll tell you why: I’m not a pacifist either. Wars or battles are sometimes justified. But, since I’m not a pacifist, I cannot claim to be peaceful.

For this reason, the ideas of who he killed (if you say he only killed men, and not because of their beliefs, then this is still killing) are also irrelevant because you have admitted that people died by Mohammed’s leadership. As I said earlier, this is something no Muslim denies.

Also, there are numerous injunctions for killing in the Koran. I studied this long ago, but the one that is the most unfair that springs to mind is the punishment for apostasy. What is the punishment for leaving your religion? Death. That’s not peaceful.

As for the 72 “virgins”, I was writing without researching, and I know you that must have been at least a little impressed with my knowledge that some Muslim theologians translate this as “angels” 😛 I only know this because I heard one Muslim theologian say this in a debate.

Anyway, as I did this without researching, I checked it out, and I have found that there are numerous references to the 72 virgins in the Hadith, which has as much authority as the Koran. The verses in the Hadith even go into detail about the looks of the virgins, going so far as to saying “they will have large, round breasts which are not inclined to hang.” I don’t know why they would care about the breasts of angels, but I’m not a Muslim 🙂

One thing I noticed about your post: you didn’t claim that Islam is a religion of peace. If this is your opinion, you’d be in good company. Even Islamists like Sayyid Qutb have stated that this is not an accurate portrayal of Islam.

One last thing… this concept that Islam is a religion of peace was mostly popularized by George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks… not saying he’s wrong, but I don’t think he’s exactly an authority on Islam 🙂

Haha, I didn’t say I want you to stop posting negative things about Islam. I said “…nor do I want you to stop posting negative things about Islam.” Go read it again.

My interpretation of Islam is how my prophet Mohammed (pbuh) interpreted it. I am but a projection of how he wanted Muslims to behave. Of course I make mistakes, but I stand by the principles in the Quran and hadeeth. By the way, your description of the 72 virgins is incorrect. The only source of these virgins is the Quran and it is not in detail at all. We only know that they are beautiful creatures not seen on this earth and cannot be imagined by any human. Do you really think a creature in heaven would look like women here? Heaven in general has been described in the Quran in general terms. The prophet (pbuh) said that it is a place that no human has ever seen or heard, and it surpasses any imagination.

Also, what’s wrong with killing? There is nothing wrong to kill someone who has killed someone from your tribe/family. Yes, prophet Muhammed (pbuh) killed…but he killed people who were killing innocents. If someone killed a person you loved dearly, what would you want to happen to him/her? Also, many leaders in the past and even today have killed. I just feel like you’re singling him out for some reason, and making him sound like a murderer. You’re not a murderer if you’re killing someone who murdered your people first. You are an avenger.

I can prove to you that Islam is completely peaceful. I am very confident that I can. If you’re thinking about death penalties, then that is part of a peaceful faith. If you want to live in peace, don’t you want to justified? Don’t you want your oppressors to be punished? Otherwise, how can you live in peace? Death penalties are for murderers only. Yes, some Islamic scholars say that apostates must die. However, others say that they should be punished differently, with no death involved. I actually find that strange and perplexing in both accounts. The Quran and hadeeths did not prescribe any punishment for apostates. There is one hadeeth that states an apostate can repent and revert and God will forgive him completely. There is no account in Islamic history, while the prophet (pbuh) was still alive, that demonstrates the killing of an apostate. The Quran states: ” …Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out from error.” (2:256). The prophet (pbuh) always condemned those who force people into Islam because religion is something between you and God, and it’s no one’s business.

I don’t know who your sources are, but I recommend reading the Quran directly (an English copy, of course). Also, you should check out some of my favorite scholars: Tariq Ramadan and Hamza Yusuf. I can assure you they can definitely separate culture from religion. The information I have given you is true and factual. I did not make up or twist information to deliver it. I have read the entire Quran in Arabic (I’m a fluent Arabic speaker) & I have read ahadeeth mu’akada (confirmed hadeeths). But I’m not claiming that I’m a scholar, of course. You can ask me further questions if you like. I love a good debate. I used to debate at my university’s debating society (ever heard of the Oxford Union?).

Ah, I must have misread your post. I guess I was hoping NOT to see anything like what I thought you wrote, and my mind just thought you did say that. 😛

Ok, so, let’s get into it.

First, You talked again about the details of the 72 virgins. There must be a lot of debate about this because I didn’t just make up the information I told you about before. I did a quick search on Wikipedia. But, I haven’t read the Hadiths or the Koran in Arabic, so I can’t claim to have primary-source knowledge. (My original source wasn’t wikipedia, by the way, but I can’t remember where I got my information from).

Nonetheless, all of this is irrelevant, as I said before, because this is not what the suicide-bombers believe. This is not what is being promulgated to the masses. Deep theologian discussions do not interest the average mosque- or church-goer. They want to hear why this religion is important for their personal lives. A preacher or imam who goes into the minutiae of theology is not going to be very successful (to you or me they might be, but not to most people).

So, the other thing that should be added here is the fact that suicide bombings are almost entirely carried out by Muslims. Is this a coincidence? Look to the Gaza Strip where you have Muslims and Christians both being persecuted, and you have an overwhelming number of Muslim suicide bombers (I think I heard of one or two Christian suicide bombers from this region). There is something that is being promulgated to the average Muslim that is condoning this kind of violence, and this promulgation is rooted in the 72 virgins mythology (I say mythology because although you say it’s not in Islam, it is being taught still).

Next, there is another point which you are saying which I agree with, and you didn’t seem to notice this. I said I agree with killing in certain circumstances. Reread what I wrote in my previous messages. This is my whole point! But this is killing nonetheless.

Also, you said I’m singling out Mohammed, but look at my previous message. I talked about Mohammed and MYSELF in the same breath. I said that I also agree with killing in some circumstances. Therefore, I am not peaceful, and neither was Mohammed. I can’t be singling him out because I’m talking about 2 people.

There are two points you raised that I want to comment on. I am a little confused as to whether you think suicide bombings is part of Islam or just what misguided Muslims do. Nonetheless, I will comment on both views. Firstly, suicide bombings are not a teaching of Islam. Islam is innocent of acts like this. Yes, “Muslims” are mostly the ones that do it, and I agree with that. But they are not really Muslims in the sense that they claim to be Muslim, yet they do not behave as prescribed in Islam. Just like how a Christian who doesn’t go to Church, doesn’t pray and fornicates, calls himself a Christian. If I stopped praying my five daily prayers, I am not a Muslim even if I call myself that. If you want to criticise the interpretation of Islam that Al Qaeda promotes, then feel free to do so- I do too. But please do not hint that suicide bombings are part of Islam, if that is the case; these are practises of some misguided Muslims. Also, this is not taught in a certified school that teaches Islamic studies. In my 16 years in Saudi Arabia I had never been taught such ludicrous information. Maybe this stuff is taught elsewhere, but never in a proper institution.

On the flip side, if what you are saying is that Islamic scholars (and not Islam) are spreading this false concept of suicide bombing, then they too fall in the same category as the misguided “Muslims” and the likes of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Islam is peaceful but not all Muslims are because people tend to misinterpret divine laws to suit their personal whims. You are right. Some people are spreading falsehoods to average Muslims like myself, but I am not the one to listen to people and just be spoon-fed. I am an intellectual and I will read into my religion and judge it myself.

Secondly, I just want to ask why killing (in certain circumstances) is not peaceful? Sorry, I didn’t realise you agreed with killing. in my defence, I was very tired when I replied to you, so that point didn’t come across clearly.

I was most definitely saying your second interpretation. The first interpretation (suicide bombing is in the Koran) is technically impossible since the Koran was around before modern explosives 😛

However, I do have to say that I think it is impossible to be a “true” Muslim or a “true” Christian if what you mean is to take the Koran or the Bible for what it says.

For example, in Christianity, you must stone any man who you discover is a homosexual. If you do otherwise, you are not obeying God’s word.

In Islam, consider this quote:

“Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” (Surah 48:29)

So…. do you have to be ruthless to me? Is that how you want to live your life? You seem to have been pretty amicable towards me, so where’s the ruthlessness? 🙂

I guess you’ll have a special interpretation of this Surah, but that always seems to happen.

Actually, one reason I gave up reading the Koran the first time I tried to read it was because I asked a Muslim about something I read, and they told me that I could never really understand the Koran unless I read it in Arabic. Well, I’m not willing to learn a whole language just to read one book. Also, if I did learn Arabic and did read the original Koran, I’m sure people would still say I’m not interpreting it right, or certain parts are not to be taken literally, or whatever. So, I gave up. I only read about 10% of it.

As for the killing in certain circumstances not being peaceful. I am really flabbergasted by this question… Well, the most obvious answer is that every human deserves the right to live. I don’t believe that people do bad things because they are inherently bad, I believe that they do them because of a bad combination of DNA and life history. That’s it. If you were born into a family with an alcoholic father who beat you every night (or did worse things) and had a mother who blamed you for always making your father angry, you can’t claim you’d turn out the way you are now. For that reason, I am against the death penalty. I am only for a just war because sometimes the alternatives may cause more death or destruction. Nonetheless, I still cannot say I am peaceful if I admit that I would authorize a just war.

Quite evidently, I am aware that there were no explosives back then- I meant the concept of suicide is a grave sin for us.

The translation you have given for verse 29, chapter of Al-Fath (The Victory) is almost correct. It says ‘forceful’ and not ‘ruthless’. But you have taken it out of context, so it does not convey that we Muslims must be forceful or even ruthless to the non-Muslims. Did you read verse 25? Do you even know what this chapter is talking about? When prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and his apostles reached Makkah, they were barred from entry by the non-believing people of Makkah at the time. They wanted to perform a pilgrimage as ordered by God. So, basically God assured the prophet (pbuh) that he and the believers (apostles and others that came with him) that they will, by His power and mercy, enter Makkah. In that specific situation, the Muslims had to be a little forceful because they were being denied their rights, but not ruthless and violent. Which of the two groups are wrong- the non-believing people of Makkah or the prophet (pbuh) & the believers? Which of them are ruthless?

So being ruthless to you does not make sense to me. A) I am not supposed to be ruthless to anyone, except in individual situations (say, if I were responsible to punish criminals, or If I were to lead a war against people that have caused the initial attack), and B) I can be forceful if you denied me of my basic right to do anything.

As for the killing part you mentioned, I repeat again that these are done to murderers only. I did not say psychologically unstable murderers. If they are sick, then the law will take that into account as he may have not been aware of the crime he committed. I’m sure you don’t know this, but Islam encourages us to forgive people that have killed our beloved ones. But we are given the option by God to give permission to have them punished by death because sometimes we cannot handle the thought of them walking around or even breathing-it’s too difficult. I will give you 2 examples of both situations. I had a relative accidentally killed by someone we know. As much as it hurt us to see our beloved relative go away like that, we forgave the killer because we understood that it was accidental, and he/she is walking free now. A popular story from Saudi that has been circulating lately is the second example. Basically, a 4-year-old girl was decapitated purposely by a mentally-stable maid. Her motive? She got an anonymous message saying she’ll be deported and she /assumed/ that it might have been from her employers (the girl’s parents), so this act was her revenge. What I find surprising is that she admitted that her employers and the girl were always nice to her. I don’t know about you, but I would’t forgive anyone who would take an innocent life like that. Do you agree that she can remain alive while the poor child is dead?

I don’t assume that you’re going to agree with me that Islam is peaceful. But to be honest, if Islam didn’t exist, I would have been an atheist.

Well, I will admit, it’s easier to find incriminating quotes from the Bible than from the Koran.

I didn’t search for too long for that quote, but I was trying to find one that couldn’t be reinterpreted too easily, and that one seemed very direct. But, you’re right, I didn’t know the context, and that seems like a valid explanation of the verse (I’m not used to that actually, I’m usually arguing with people who are saying, “oh, a sword in this case just means an “argument” and “kill everyone” just means “disagree with others”. I’m sure you’ve seen these people before). So, you win that round 🙂

As for the killing murderers paragraph. Like, I said, I am not religious, and I think that this is why I am freer to think like this: there is not absolute good or evil person. There are good acts and evil acts. All of these acts are due to the person’s prior history and DNA. That’s it. Yes, I’m saying what you think I’m saying. I think that there is no such thing as free will — or more specifically, it is an illusion.
As for that Saudi woman who killed a 4-year-old girl that you mentioned, I would not jump to conclusions here. First, do we really know her mental state? Can we ever perfectly know someone’s mental state? Perhaps she was diagnosed as “sane,” but that only tells us so much. I really question the sanity of someone who could not only kill, but decapitate a child. Second, we don’t really know all the details of the relationship, I’m sure. The full history of the woman and the family can never be known. There may have been animosity, racism (was this in Saudi Arabia or another country?), who knows?
Further, considering I don’t believe in free will, I don’t think that it’s fair to put someone to death for something they couldn’t have avoided. She should remain in jail to keep her from harming another person, but should she be put to death? It seems immoral to me. An evil act will not delete a prior evil act.

Your last paragraph is flattering, but really, not necessary 🙂 … but still pretty flattering, 🙂 thank you.

I just read an article concerning that maid. I realize now that the maid was a foreigner living in Saudi Arabia (so, the racism possibility is still there). It was a Saudi newspaper, and to be honest, it seemed a little biased. It focused on how Saudi women are now concerned about the safety of their children (as if this exceptional case is going to catch on and become commonplace). Further, it only gave an explanation of the relationship between the family and the maid from the perspective of the family. No quote from the maid or her lawyer. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some mistreatment (which often happens when a foreign maid takes care of a family in ANY country, when the family knows the maid is there illegally).

Pretty good post. I would agree that the religion of Islam does not have a peaceful influence on people. That is not to say that Muslims can’t be peaceful, or even that the majority of them aren’t peaceful, they are just peaceful for other reasons. It is important to remember that the media IS NOT an accurate representation of what’s going on in the world. The news reports only when there is a problem. For example they will report on a school shooting, but not on every other normal day of the school. Likewise they will report on islamic terrorism, but not on the normal everyday lives of muslims. People should be very careful about forming their opinons based on news coverage.

I definitely agree that the media is obviously only going to focus on things that are out of the ordinary. It would be a pretty boring report showing a regular day at a high school 🙂 .

As for Islamic terrorism though, I don’t think comparing a school shooting and a suicide bombing are fair in the way you did (Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound so strong, but it is my honest opinion).

Here’s why: first, when a school shooting happens, we get tons of media coverage about it. Why? Two reasons, probably. First, this is within our own country, so it garners more attention. Second, there may be a latent racism/nationalism involved (I’ll admit this), in the idea that we feel a stronger emotional reaction to “our people” being hurt or killed verses people from another country. This may sound like a very contentious statement, but the fact is that everyone has subconscious racism. I’m not just making this up, there is an actual test to determine how racist you are subconsciously. You can check it out here:

We can’t control this, and so, I’d say you can’t blame anyone, or the media for this, but you can criticize it.

Second, when a suicide bombing happens, we don’t actually focus too much on it. Consider the vast number of suicide bombings that have occurred in Iraq. At first, we were pretty shocked by them (although, of course, not on the scale of a Columbine massacre), but slowly they slipped in importance to most of us — a sad but true fact, if you’re being honest with yourself, in most cases.

So, the end result: we actually don’t focus on the massive numbers of violent attacks (suicide bombing, or otherwise) that occur in other countries (this would include a large number of suicide bombings motivated by quotes from the Koran). Therefore, in fact, our consciousness, I would argue, is slanted in the opposite direction. We don’t notice how much violence is happening in the name of Islam but we notice when a few people die in our own country.

What do you think?

P.S. Although I argued here for the media to an extent, I don’t base my opinions on the media. I mostly base them on the opinions of experts via debates or books, alongside other sources, such as the media.

Nice article. But all this Fits to one Quote by the Physics Nobel Laureate Steven Wienberg:
“Good people do good, and bad people do bad. But for Good people to do bad, you need religion” . And it is certainly true.
I being raised as Hindu know very less about Mohammed, and Jesus also. I know about Hindu gods but that too is Incomplete. In Mid way, i turned an Agnostic. I do not care if Krishna or Rama, or Allah or Jesus and his Father exist or not. My life is determined by my actions that is the simple policy.
But I did notice one thing, All you people here, go watch the Documentary the GOD DELUSION, its hosted by one of the Most Famous Atheist Richard Dawkins. In the whole series you will see that he faces religious people with criticism. They all respond well in front of camera and then they are shown in rage shouting at him and so on. But when i goes to Jerusalem, meets a Muslim fellow and asks about his religion, he shouts and unlike other religious people and Brands western women as Whores (I do not know if it was western or all Non-Muslim Women). He goes on to say a lot more about this and that is what shocked me.
I know there are peaceful muslims out there just like peaceful people of all religion and non-believers. But these documentary people don’t go on about asking random people about their religion. They contact people, and if they are of certain position, and agree to answer, they contact them. Which means this man was waiting to get on TV and tell all those things.

Another thing was this Documentary called Religulous by Bill Maher. There also he meets a Muslim leader , but in Netherlands. You see That guy was much more calm and nice to answer with manners.

All i could make out was , those people in their homelands are not peaceful. Outside settlers are much more peaceful.

Now others can ask me how can you classify people based on a few shows and things like that.
Well, there is something to it. You know you are on a show, and you know that the show is aired for at least some people. If you are really a peaceful religion, then you must show it on camera to at least ‘PORTRAY’ that.
Being an Agnostic it doesn’t bother me how people of religion behave as long as they are peaceful to the world. I do NOT say ISLAM is a Violent Religion. But it surely isn’t peaceful either. and you will find this in all religion. Just turns out, Muslims are more prone to prove their religious nature to the world, and do not care about the other religion.

I’ve never met an agnostic from the Hindu religion, so it’s fascinating to hear your perspective (and not just because it aligns with mine 🙂 ).

I’m glad you got my main point here too. I am not actually slamming Islam because I hate Islam more than any other religion; it’s the fact that Muslims and liberal Westerners keep proclaiming that “Islam is a religion of peace.” We don’t hear people saying “Christianity is a religion of peace” or “Hinduism is a religion of peace.” Why? Because we don’t see daily news about Christian or Hindu suicide bombings (no doubt these exist, but there’s also no doubt that the scale is orders of magnitude lower than Muslim suicide bombings). The fact is that at this time in world history, Islam is the most dangerous religion. This is the reason people state that it is a religion of peace: they are afraid that if they don’t do this most people will notice the reality around them.

I Agree. But then you can consider this in a Humorous way about the suicide Bombings.
A person is born, he is married, may be to a lot of women, or one, then he remembers what he was taught. If he dies, he gets 72 Virgrins or Angels for him to either command or do whatever he wants to. So is led to suicide bombing with the hope of 72 angels or virgins which is much more than what he can acquire in this life, and then may be in his attempt, kill a few muslims and free them too of their suffering and give them their virgins and rest in peace in paradise of whatever they call it. So he not only has brought his religion to prominence, but also helped a few brothers.
Other religions do not offer such a scheme. You either live and suffer, or die and you never know what may happen. May be that is why other religions attach less.
These men just lack common sense. No many is assured that he can be a human when he gets those virgins. Who knows God may make him a Donkey or a Bacteria or anything worse, and grant him 72 Human virgins. WHat’s the point???

LOL. People need to think.

But ya apart from the thoughts of religious violence, what we fail to consider is that in most cases, apart from the virgins, these people’s families are offered money, or at least they say it for the person to do that task. So in the hope to keep their families happy on earth with all the suffering, and the thought of the 72, they commit suicide .

You post interesting posts here. Your blog deserves much bigger audience.
It can go viral if you give it initial boost, i know useful service that can help you, simply type in google:
svetsern traffic tips